Bruce Brooks wrote:
> CASE 1 (Lk 6:39, the blind leading the blind).
> ....... We should distinguish original material from inertial material, that
> retained from Mk or another predecessor. The latter may be there simply
> because it is there in the source. The former is more likely to show where
> the author personally is at. There is no nullification.
I agree with the distinction. But it doesn't apply in this case because my
example of Luke retaining criticisms of Jewish groups in Lk 11:39ff., and
your claim that Luke would have dropped the criticism of Pharisees because
he lacked interest in them, both involve material belonging to the category
you call "inert", i.e. material from a predecessor. Therefore the
> ....... I am open to statistics. Meanwhile, I am prepared to allow Luke to
> vary Matthew's rhetoric, if only to fend off boredom.
Anyone can argue for a remote possibility. Probable? No.
> ..... Except that I go on to argue that the "blind" passage *does* link to
> the following Lukan text, which then becomes relevant to interpretation.
> Does this in turn mean that Lk is "taking sayings from an early source and
> KEEPING them in their original order?"
As it happens, yes. According to my reconstruction of the logia, 'Blind
guide' (A9, Lk 6:39) originally had a different saying in front of it (A8,
Lk 6:27-30,32-36), but was followed by the same saying (A10, Lk 6:40).
> ..... As to Ron's own version
> of Q, to which he here refers, I note that B4 and D4 stand notably apart in
> it, and I cannot at this moment see what would be gained by Luke's
> attempting to establish a link between them.
It wasn't Luke who created a link between them, but the author of the logia
who ensured a link between each saying in section B and its corresponding
saying in section D. Likewise with sections A and C. This "ensuring" was
primarily by putting the sayings in a suitable order, but occasionally as in
this case it may have involved a minor amendment to the saying to create the
> ....... Luke has previously written
> his account of the Sending of the Twelve (Lk 9), based essentially on Mark.
> He is now coming up to write his account of the Sending of the Seventy (Lk
> 10). Ron has said that the number seventy [-two, let's not quibble] is an
> "editorial addition: by Luke. Editorial addition to what?
To his adaptation of the logia 'Mission instructions'.
> Bruce: But why have a second version at all?
For two reasons. Firstly because he had another source (the logia)
containing a slightly different set of mission instructions. Secondly to
symbolize the mission to the Gentiles.
> Multiplication of sources ad hoc. I reject it.
So do I.
> We have a perfectly
> clear "kernel" in Mark, the Sending of the Twelve. If Luke had additional
> information about that event, I would expect him to use it to enhance his
> version of the Markan prototype, not to start a second Sending with it.
As noted above, Luke had two reasons to duplicate the story. To elaborate on
the first: as a good scholar he probably realized that the Aramaic logia
version was older than the Greek Markan version, but with no established
source-critical techniques he may have been reluctant to attempt a
combination of these important sayings from his two best sources.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm